1967 replies to this topic

[frenat]

Chrlzs, on 07 October 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Gort, TL;DR.  Why post such a ridiculous wall of text?


WHY exactly is it interesting?

1. How much?
2. What type?
3. What type of shielding is effective?

In other words, I am calling you out - do you have the knowledge of that which you speak?  If so, answer those questions and we'll discuss this fully.  If yiou can't, or get them wrong, then your opinion is irrelevant.


As above, please don't handwave.  Put some numbers to that alleged 'insurmountability'.  After all, the amount and type of radiation was quite well understood at the time of Apollo and is even  better understood nowadays.  The ISS and many satellites pass through some of the high energy parts of the VA Belts quite regularly.  Do you believe the ISS is a hoax too?


Why?  How much do you think they would cost, and who would pay?

This is what Gort does.  Based on his activity elsewhere, he'll copy/paste a wall of text or two, never respond to questions, and then disappear for a while.  Basically he treats any forum like a personal blog.  Presumably he thinks he's above answering questions about the stuff he posts, not that they're his anyway.  Usually they're just direct copy/pastes from somewhere else that was debunked years ago.

Edited by frenat, 07 October 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[MID]

i'm about to ask a question which may be redundant here.
I am sure though, that you've all noticed that turb tends to ignore me quite alot ( a normal HB  reaction when countered with knowledge he can't imagine!).    This is because I know lots of things he doesn't, and he's afraid to do the work necessary to learn, because when he learns, he'll have to say he was wrong and go away someplace.  But--

Have you noticed the blatantly childish and thoroughly un-hidden manner that he employs to divert things from what I've repeatedly (and others have) asked him and reminded him to do here?

He's been re-engaging this ridiculous "halo"** issue for two or more weeks, despite the fact that it completely explained before, and other than "cool", this aspect has nothing to do with Apollo 15, save show it's landing site with a wee bit of detail.  LRO photos have done that with a wee bit more precision ( ), but it doesn't really matter too much, since we know where Apollo 15 landed, very precisely, and have for decades...without LRO photos


So, (boring...) I'm going to ask him again:


Turb, how you coming with PROVING your contention?

And if you decide to bore people with such nonsense after another week off to think about it (and call NASA for the information you want (I can't wait for that!)),
then I won't be surprized if someone's frustration with you winds up getting you reamed, as opposed to what you're used to:  polite toleration.

[MID]

gort., on 07 October 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

It is interesting to note how NASA is perceived to be a civilian agency.Doesn't matter nowadays.Ionizing radiation in deep space as well as the insurmountable obstacle of the VA Belts/magnetosphere makes that a moot point.But if it were possible for deep space exploration,we'd have military outposts on the moon by now.

I see gort, that you understand as much about space, the orbital, cis-lunar, and solar  environment in our space as you do about project Horizon (long obsolete...probably before you were born.), or NASA for that matter.

I should tell you that NASA is well known for what it is:  An agency involved in the exploration of space, and in the education of the public in those activities, as well as an agency devoted to research, development, and understanding of the environment and the many off shoots possible and indeed, in work as a result of the agency's activities.  NASA was formed with that intent in mind in 1958, and never was the idea of "military" operations  involved in the agency officially.   NASA has always been a National civilian agency, under the jurisdiction of the Government of the United States.  Civilians head it up, and always have.

It woud be interesting to know ionizing radiation in deep space, and "insurmountable" Van Allen radiation , both things which NASA overcame many times to sent unmanned and manned spacecraft to the Moon , all successfully in the 1960s and early 1970s, make NASA a moot point, or are some grounds for establishing military out posts on the Moon...?


Your post isn't making all too much sense.


And project Horizon, an ill fated concept originated in 1959, was wiped off the boards before feasibility studies could be completed  (that meant quickly, as NASA was a we bit busy, as of 1961 with some project called Apollo).

And as far as having military outposts on the Moon, it might be interesting to you to note that as of 27 January 1967, that's been prohibited, as has any military use of space, by the Outer Space Treaty.  All nations who could have the technical capability to do such a thing have signed this treaty.

NASA is a civilian organization.
There never has been an insurmountable obstacle in the Van Allen Belts, nor has there even been an active desire, or the legal authority  (nor the need) to establish a military base on the Moon.


I don't know where your ideas came from.  There's nothing to support them.

Were you going to discuss the Apollo program?  Having a problem with it?
It doesn't have anything to do with the military, or illegal military usage of space or the Moon.

[MID]

turbonium, on 07 October 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

No. You just keep making the same unsubstantiated claims. iver and over again.

This could be the most ridiculously humorous thing you've said here!  I...keep making unsubstantiated claims here???

Quote

All you do is say how it's been explained to me, and that I should call NASA about it.

This is utterly ridiculous.

Yes, it is.  I should fully realize that you won't contact NASA (you know, the source of the fake Moon landings...you'd have a field day with those nice folks!...well, they might have one with you, which is really your problem, I know...).  You obviously also don't want to search back here and find the information you need (!).  We all remember.  You selectively don't, and thus, we are required to do it all over again???

Yea turb.  That'll work...



There was a question to you about proving your contention?

I don't know...for the life of me I cannot remember one single reasonable attempt you've ever made at trying that.

Maybe another week off will allow you the time to try that?

Quote

Why can't you show me even one single source explaining this 'phenomenon'?

It's been done.  I don't waste my time doing your homework.  I even told you where to go to find what you're looking for.  Marshall Spaceflight Center and NASA Houston.

Apparently, you can't do your own work so you want to waste our time (when it's already been wasted by you) so you can keep yourself aboard here, and feel "important".

I get it.  I'm just a little busy these days (technical stuff.  I wouldn't want to bore you with that sort of stuff.  Gotta run!).

[MID]

Lets try another question you'll avoid answering:


If this was a fake scene, turb, how did John Young do this???
On Earth, 1 g, a 180+ pound suit and PLSS strapped to him, and he jumped a foot and a half off the ground!  How'd he get that 300 pounds up off the ground like that???



Just curious about your well though out ideas...

[skyeagle409]

gort., on 07 October 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

Doesn't matter nowadays.Ionizing radiation in deep space as well as the insurmountable obstacle of the VA Belts/magnetosphere makes that a moot point.

Are X-rays dangerous? Have you been zapped by X-rays? Is so, why are you still alive? What do we know about the Van Allen belts?

Quote

The Van Allen Belts

Human Impacts.

Humans have been affected by Belt particles, though not as severly as some people might believe. To see how this works, we need to learn a little about how to measure the biological effects of radiation exposure.

Scientists measure radiation exposure by using a unit called the Rad which stands for 'RAdiation-equivalent Dose' not 'radical'. If a piece of biological tissue is exposed to 1 Rad of radiation, this means a specific amount of energy as been delivered to the tissue. This energy can either do nothing, or it can cause damage. The damage it does is worse if it happens to be particles like electrons and protons, than if it is just electromagnetic radiation. So, to take the kind of radiation into account, a new unit is used called the Rem. When your parents visit their doctor and have to take a chest X-ray, this is worth about 0.020 Rem's - a unit we can also write as '20 milli-Rems' or 20 mRem. The place where you live has different kinds of naturally-occuring radiation from the ground and air, and in one year you get about 350 mRem of dosage. There is little you can do about this, but some places are worse to live than others. If you lived in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, your exposure might be 380 mRem. If you lived near the sea coast, it might be only 300 mRem. Some people live in areas of India where the soils are rich in radioactive uranium. Their dosages are over 700 mRem per year!

Space Shuttle and Space Station astronauts inside their crafts receive about 2 mRems of additional dosage each time they pass through the SAA. In one day they can accumulate 30 mRem of dosage. Over the course of a week, this adds up to 7 x 30 = 210 mRems which is just below the dosage you get at ground-level in a single year (about 350mRem).

Apollo astronauts, however, were forced to traverse the most intense regions of the Belts in their journey to the Moon. Fortunately, the travel time was only about 30 minutes so their actual radiation exposures inside the Apollo space capsule were not much more than the total dose received by Space Shuttle astronauts.

This fact counters some popular speculations that the moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have instantly died as they made the travel through the belts. In reality, they may have experienced minor radiation poisoning if they had been in their spacesuits on a spacewalk, but no spacewalk was ever scheduled for these very reasons. The shielding provided by the Apollo space capsule walls was more than enough to shield the astronauts from all but the most energetic, and rare, particles.

Still, the astronauts reported seeing 'shooting stars'. These were caused by very energetic particles streaking through the fluid in the eye and colliding with retinal cells, leaving behind the appearance of a luminous, but fleeting, trail of light. Similar streaks have been reported by astronauts in the Space Shuttle and other near-earth missions during the most intense solar storms. It is not known what the long-term consequences of these kinds of brief exposures are upon astronauts, but prospective travelers to Mars will no doubt see many more of them!


http://image.gsfc.na...tour/AAvan.html

Think about the Van Allen belts and radiation exposure time period the next time you visit the hospital for an X-ray.

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 October 2012 - 04:10 PM.

[MID]

I don't know Sky,   but  have a feeling this fellow may be a drive by.  My gut says he has no intent of responding to questions put to him...

[frenat]

MID, on 07 October 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

I don't know Sky,   but  have a feeling this fellow may be a drive by.  My gut says he has no intent of responding to questions put to him...

And you'd be right.

[MID]

frenat, on 07 October 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

And you'd be right.

I take it you've seen this person before, fre???

Edited by MID, 07 October 2012 - 05:10 PM.

[frenat]

MID, on 07 October 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

I take it you've seen this person before, fre???

He's on the David Icke Forum where he does the exact same thing.

[MID]

frenat, on 07 October 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

He's on the David Icke Forum where he does the exact same thing.

Ahhh.  I see!

Also glad I don't go there!
I just looked through his posts here, and that's adventure enough!

[skyeagle409]

MID, on 07 October 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

I don't know Sky,   but  have a feeling this fellow may be a drive by.  My gut says he has no intent of responding to questions put to him...

I think you are right! One of those fly by nighters.

[MID]

skyeagle409, on 07 October 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

I think you are right! One of those fly by nighters.

Yep...just fly in (night or day), say something silly....and run away!

[Bionic Bigfoot]

Please forgive me as being a new member and I don't have the time or inclination to read this entire topic at this time.

I've  had moments of skepticism and questioned whether or not the USA landed men on the moon.  When the conspiracy theorists came out of the woodwork and started pointing out anomalies and discrepancies with various facts, photographic evidence etc., it did get me thinking.  There did seem to be cause for questions....

However, my beliefs about the moon landings and visits go beyond what we have been conditioned or led to believe.  I DO believe that the USA and NASA went to the moon and the astronauts saw things up there.

Again, we have one side that discredits the whole lunar missions as being impossible at that time and for various reasons, then we have the other camp that has factual scientific evidence that it was possible.  It comes down to what to believe as fact, sorting out cover-ups, conspiracies and science frauds, versus true science and what knowledge could be kept from the general public.

[MID]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 07 October 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Please forgive me as being a new member and I don't have the time or inclination to read this entire topic at this time.

I've  had moments of skepticism and questioned whether or not the USA landed men on the moon.  When the conspiracy theorists came out of the woodwork and started pointing out anomalies and discrepancies with various facts, photographic evidence etc., it did get me thinking.  There did seem to be cause for questions....

However, my beliefs about the moon landings and visits go beyond what we have been conditioned or led to believe.  I DO believe that the USA and NASA went to the moon and the astronauts saw things up there.

Again, we have one side that discredits the whole lunar missions as being impossible at that time and for various reasons, then we have the other camp that has factual scientific evidence that it was possible.  It comes down to what to believe as fact, sorting out cover-ups, conspiracies and science frauds, versus true science and what knowledge could be kept from the general public.

Wow, I am a little stunned by this post!
Not in a negative way.  I rather appreciate it!

I am about to respond to it in detail...